Rethinking SmartArchitecture: SomeStrategic DesignFrameworksMahesh Senagala

33issue 03, volume 04international journal of architectural computing

IJAC 4-3 29/08/06 8:21 am Page 33

Rethinking Smart Architecture: Some StrategicDesign FrameworksMahesh Senagala

The paper is an attempt to provide a comprehensivere-definition and a complex-adaptive framework forstrategic understanding of smart architecture.Thepaper rethinks smart architecture’s strategic andconceptual frameworks.A complex-adaptive andsystems approach has been forwarded as analternative. Comprehensive definition of smartarchitecture has been provided. Disparate yet relatedcamps of responsive architecture, adaptivearchitecture, intelligent buildings, kinetic architecturehave been brought under the umbrella of smartarchitecture.The role of users in smart architecturalschemata has been explored. Examples of a few recentarchitectural projects have been used to illustrate theemerging directions in smart architecture.

34

IJAC 4-3 29/08/06 8:21 am Page 34

1 INTRODUCTION

Smart architecture is fast becoming a buzzword in architecture and relatedfields.While the discipline of architecture was busy debating the issues ofdouble-coding and architectural semantics during the eighties [1], a spiritedcircle of researchers in engineering and architecture were actively exploringthe notion of intelligent buildings [2].AT&T toyed with “intelligent buildings”in 1982 [3,4].A number of books were published under that rubricespousing great hope [5-10]. However, the notion of intelligence has almostalways been limited to building system automation, entertainment andappliance integration through computational agencies.

Significant amount of current research on smart architecture is focusedon the area of “smart homes.” Scalability, portability, and conceptual clarityhave been the limiting factors in extending that research to larger buildingapplications. Interestingly, the research and scholarship in the area of smartenvironments is finding primary patronage in the technical disciplines suchas computer science, electrical engineering and mechanical engineering. Forinstance, dozens of conferences have been conducted and hundreds ofpapers have been written on the topic of smart architecture in such forumsas IEEE. However, the number of architects or architectural researchersdirectly involved or interested in this area can be counted on fingers.Thenumber of conferences dedicated to this topic within the discipline ofarchitecture can also be counted on fingers.There is a paucity of workwithin the discipline of architecture on this important and potentiallytransformative subject.This paper attempts to outline a complex-adaptivesystems framework for smart architecture, outline an agenda, and connectthe dots of some significant conceptual, technological and architecturaldevelopments in this direction.The title of the paper is double-coded toread in two different ways. One way of reading it is “rethinking thediscourse about smart architecture,” and the other way of looking at it is“smart architecture that rethinks its own raison d’être.”

2 DEFINITIONS: SMART ARCHITECTURE, SMARTENVIRONMENTS AND SMART BUILDINGS

One of the goals of this paper is to begin to define the scope and challengesof smart architecture.This task involves defining the attribute of smartness,questioning the purpose of smartness in architecture, and identifying therevolutionary possibilities that are bound to transform architecture as aprofession and the building industry as a trade.

What does it mean for architecture to be smart? How smart is toosmart? How is smartness measured? How does it differ from the previousattempts at making architecture mechanically and/or computationallyintelligent? How does it relate to or embrace design computing, computeraided architectural design and sustainable design? Is there a possiblearchitectural framework that can be used to provide the necessary

35Rethinking Smart Architecture: Some Strategic Design Frameworks

IJAC 4-3 29/08/06 8:21 am Page 35

direction to the myriad academic and professional pursuits currentlyunderway? What are the formal and spatial implications of smarttechnologies in architecture? The author will attempt to find answers tosome of these questions within the limited real estate of the few pages thatfollow.

Currently, the notion of smart architecture is wrought with unintendedvagueness.There has been no fundamental discourse about what constitutessmart architecture and its principles. Is anything with a microchip smart? Isanything that is networked worthy of attribution of intelligence? What arethe benchmarks for smartness in architecture? As an architect and asystems theorist with a particular interest in complex-adaptive systems, Ifind a number of basic systems concepts to be of great help inaccomplishing the present task of framing smart architecture.

What is the meaning of smart architecture? Smart architecture maybecomprehensively defined as a blend of passive and active technological andarchitectural strategies that harness computationally networked, globallyconnected, complex-adaptive and real-time responsiveness so as to form a co-evolutionary whole with the inhabitants.

The notion of smart environment differs significantly from discipline todiscipline. Diane Cook and Sajal Das offer a different definition of smartenvironment [11]:“A definition of smart or intelligent is the ability toautonomously acquire and apply knowledge, while environment refers to oursurroundings.We therefore define a smart environment as one that is ableto acquire and apply knowledge about an environment and also to adapt toits inhabitants in order to improve their experience in that environment.”

Within the discipline of architecture, smart architecture is a notion thatis currently popular in the sustainable design and smart home circles, wheresmartness often refers to the ability to passively or actively regulate avariety of environmental parameters including energy efficiency [12-14].Other terms have been used by various people to mean more or less thesame set of architectural attributes and functionality as smart architecture.The term responsive architecture puts emphasis on increasing the interactivenature of building elements in response to environmental or social orcommercial needs in real-time [15]. Responsive architecture may involve anyform of computationally-mediated responsiveness. Kinetic architecture, aterm once popular in the 1960s, is preferred by those who see architectureas a literally more mechanical, kinetic and moving organism [16] wherespatial, mechanical movements are essential to its definition. However, all theterms represent directions in architecture that involve active, instantaneousresponse to internal or external conditions through computational agency.

It is important to understand the subtle yet important distinctionsbetween smart architecture, smart environments and smart buildings. If we setaside the attribute of smartness, we have three terms representing threedistinct, albeit overlapping notions: architecture, environment, and building.For the purposes of this paper and the context of the current discourse,

36 Mahesh Senagala

IJAC 4-3 29/08/06 8:21 am Page 36

architecture maybe defined as the sum total of the bodies of knowledge,representational systems, artifacts (such as buildings), underlying orderingand configuration systems, practices, philosophies, and the discourses aboutthe culture of building.Architecture involves comprehensive and criticaldesign of institutions.

Environment maybe defined as that which provides the overarching fieldof frameworks, systems, principles, protocols, infrastructure and platformswithin which tools, devices, users and activities can be supported, nourishedand nurtured.

A building maybe defined as a physical artifact that is the result ofcertain architectural processes.A building is a sum total of materials, humanactivities, HVAC systems, and metabolism.

If we add the attribute of smartness, then it implies that these processes,things and notions are mediated by intelligence, learning, and autonomousdecision making in architecture, environments and buildings.

3 COMPLEX VERSUS COMPLICATED

Complexity is not an oft talked about concept in architecture. RobertVenturi’s Complexity and Contradiction in Architecture does venture tosome extent in connecting with the notions of complexity in otherdisciplines while focusing almost exclusively on mannerist complexity ofmeaning, surface, iconography and historic references. [17]

What is complexity? The word complexity is a derivative of the Latinroot complexus, which means totality and embrace. Complexity refers tosystemic totality and to the interrelationships between various subsystems.This differs from the common parlance that complexity is opposed tosimplicity.The word simplicity descends from Latin roots sim+plec, whichliterally means single fold.The true opposite of simplicity is complication,which means to fold together.While there is a synonymous relationshipbetween complexity and complication, they are distinctly different notions.Complex systems can be simple or complicated. Complicated systems arenot necessarily complex. Complex systems, as they are understood todayand defined in no fewer than millions of words of cross-disciplinarydiscourse, are closely related to such phenomena as adaptive systems, non-linear systems and living systems. In complex systems there is an element oflearning and adaptation.There is also an element of self-awareness, whichdiffers significantly from automation. Paul Cilliers, a leading proponent ofcomplex systems theory sums it up thus:

The concept ‘complexity’ is not univocal either. Firstly it is useful todistinguish between the notions ‘complex’ and ‘complicated’. If asystem - despite the fact that it may consist of a huge number ofcomponents - can be given a complete description in terms of itsindividual constituents, such a system is merely complicated.Thingslike jumbo jets or computers are complicated. In a complex system, on

37Rethinking Smart Architecture: Some Strategic Design Frameworks

IJAC 4-3 29/08/06 8:21 am Page 37

the other hand, the interactions among constituents of the system,and the interaction between the system and its environment, are ofsuch a nature that the system as a whole cannot be fully understoodsimply by analyzing its components. Moreover, these relationships arenot fixed, but shift and change, often as a result of self-organization.This can result in novel features, usually referred to in terms ofemergent properties.The brain, natural language and social systems arecomplex. [18]

Why should we consider complexity in the discussion about smartarchitecture? Complexity is the essence of architecture. In architecture wefind a coming together of the poetics of technology, space, life style issues,idiosyncrasies of individual metabolism, and familial particularities. Smartarchitecture is no more complicated than smart cars. But smart architecturedoes pose challenges that are truly complex, cultural, and require creativedesign solutions.A complex-adaptive approach to smart architecturestrategically fosters a more meaningful and connected whole. In thesections that follow, the author will discuss a number of strategies to handleintrinsic or extrinsic complexity in smart architecture.

4 IP VERSUS XP: CONNECTION VS CONTAINMENTAND NETWORK VS ROOM

A building is a network for living in [19].While all complex-adaptive systemshave a sense of autonomy, they are part of a larger system. Just as a humanindividual has a clear-cut identity as a complex-adaptive system, everyhuman being is an integral part of a large life-world system. Likewise, smartsystems would be very dumb if conceived as self-contained systems that aredisconnected from the larger world systems.A network as a whole is alwaysa more capable, adaptive and complex system than any of its components.However, it would be a fallacy to think that a network of computers anddevices in and of itself is smart. It is the human participation in the networkand the networking of human beings that make a network complex, smartand adaptive. Human beings are integral parts of any given intelligentnetwork.

A network is an interconnected system with a certain structure ofrelationships. Kevin Kelly, the executive editor of WIRED magazine summedup the essence of the current paradigmatic shift thus:“the central act ofcoming era is to connect everything to everything.All matter, big and small,will be linked into vast webs of networks at many levels.Without grandmeshes there is no life, intelligence, and evolution; with networks there areall of these and more” [20]. Derrick de Kerckhove noted that the“architecture of intelligence is the architecture of connectivity. It is thearchitecture that brings together the three main spatial environments thatwe live in and with today: mind, world and networks.” [21]A number of networks are either already in use or being developed that

38 Mahesh Senagala

IJAC 4-3 29/08/06 8:21 am Page 38

will radically alter our perception and use of our buildings.Wide areanetworks (WAN), personal area networks (PAN), body area networks(BAN), and their wireless counter parts WWAN,WPAN,WBAN are atvarious stages of development and implementation around the world. Intel’snew WiMAX technology buoys these possibilities by preparing to introducecell phone-like ubiquitous and wide-ranging network coverage for laptopsand other computational devices(www.intel.com/netcomms/technologies/wimax).A WiMAX-equipped laptopor computational device can stay connected to the Internet all the timewithout any wires. Such a technological network would be a crucial turningpoint in the journey toward the emerging noosphere.

At a time when even the toasters and refrigerators are being hooked upto the Internet, architecture is not going to be left too far behind, despitethe best efforts to resist the evolution by the profession’s conservativecore. Connection is the keyword, the buzzword and the overarching conceptof how buildings could become networked computer systems.A computeras a box that is not connected to the larger networks is very limited in itsrole and outreach. Similarly, buildings conceived as isolated boxes, albeitinternally computationally sophisticated are also very limited in theirsmartness from a complex-adaptive viewpoint.

4.1 ONSTAR@HOME

General Motors’ OnStar ® vehicle security system has already transformedour automobiles, which are now controlled by dozens of embeddedcomputers and networked via satellites, into GPS-powered real-timenetwork nodes.An OnStar operator can access most of the critical systemsof an automobile remotely and suggest or coordinate a course of action atthe touch of a remote button. The biggest evolutionary jump for automobiles isnot in their growing engine size or seductive body shape; it is in the pervasivecomputerization and wireless digital networking.According to some sources,nearly 80% of all innovations within automobiles today are derivatives ofelectronic systems [22]. That is a far cry from the pre-nineties automobileindustry where manufacturing and fabrication issues took the center stage ofinnovation.The mobile space of the automobile has been transformed into aninteractive real-time network node capable of keeping us connected to therest of the world, for better or for worse.Automobiles are already a part ofthe emerging noosphere.The OnStar system can access all the criticalvehicular systems, diagnose any problems even before the symptoms showup. It can email the user the system details and diagnostics at anytime.Architecture is also becoming a part of such a post-spatial digital ecosystem.

The Internet Home Alliance (internethomealliance.com), a cross-industrycollaboration between GM’s OnStar, Invensys,ADT Security Systems, HP,Panasonic, and many other corporate partners have launched, in early 2002,a post-spatial initiative to integrate OnStar’s Virtual Advisor® service with

39Rethinking Smart Architecture: Some Strategic Design Frameworks

IJAC 4-3 29/08/06 8:21 am Page 39

home security control, telecommunications control, and climate controlfrom any Internet enabled appliance located anywhere in the world.Thissystem also gives the customer visual access to his or her house at anytime. Garage doors, access doors, windows, all the major home appliances,HVAC system, security system, and telecommunication systems arenetworked using the HP Application Server 8.0 framework as gateway.Theparticipating customer would be able to access any and all of these aspectsin real-time from any computational device such as a cell phone or a PDAor a laptop.The customer would be able to remotely turn on or off theappliances such as kitchen stove or refrigerator. Panasonic’s smart doorbellwould notify the customer anywhere, through audiovisual access, wheneverhis or her doorbell is rung.Thus, appliances, HVAC systems, securitysystems, and a host of other building systems are computationallynetworked and connected to the global nomads - the home owners.

Many other initiatives and projects are moving in a similar direction.MavHome (University of Texas at Arlington),Adaptive House (University ofColorado at Boulder), House_n (MIT),Aware Home (Georgia Tech),Gloucester Smart House (UK), Microsoft Easy Living, Philips Smart Homeand many other ongoing projects are exploring a myriad technological andtechnical challenges of smart homes.

The repercussions of these initiatives are revolutionary.With OnStarautomobile technologies, GE gets to access, assess, and market a variety ofproducts and services to their “target demographic.” The invisible strings ofcommunication and data streams connect GE and its vendors to the variousautomobiles as they move in space-time.With smart homes, the stringsconnect to the “sitting targets” of real estate.The marketing and salespossibilities spawned by the data streams generated by smart homes arevirtually unlimited and ominously far-reaching.Today, we do see manyinstances where the computers, cell phones and other devices are thrown-in for free for a subscription service.At some point in the future, it mayeven be possible to give the house for free for subscribing to a smart homevendor.

5 THE ROLE OF HUMAN(S) IN COMPLEX-ADAPTIVE SMART ARCHITECTURAL SCHEMA

Many of the current models of smart architecture are based on certainassumptions about human behavior and aspirations. In general, these modelsassume that physiological comfort is the goal of smart environments.Theyalso assume that the HCI (Human Computer Interface) has to become astransparent as possible [23] so as to avoid a steep user learning curve.Yetanother assumption is that the humans want more and more hands-offcomfort.The flip side of such an approach is that as architecture getssmarter with more and more “sensors,” human senses become more andmore numb, anesthetized and potentially atrophied.As more of the “non-

40 Mahesh Senagala

IJAC 4-3 29/08/06 8:21 am Page 40

critical” decision-making is transferred from the users to the smart systems,the users stand the danger of losing their visceral connection to the buildingand its surroundings.

Few if any of the smart homes are really based on well-developedtheories and philosophies about domestic life.Vivian Loftness and VictorHarkoff, et al. had raised this point nearly two decades ago:“The presentintelligent building approach basically represents a technologically-centeredidea, not a human-centered one, extending the notion that buildingoccupants detrimentally affect environmental performance” [24]. Wisneski,Ishii, el al have taken a similar stance.Their “ambient display” projects aregeared toward turning architecture into a comprehensive interface wherebuildings connect people to the world via the Internet [25]. Most models ofsmart architecture pit humans on one side and architecture on the otherside in a guessing game: movement and behavior prediction algorithms tryto guess and learn from certain observations of human actions [26].Computer vision software try to figure out the human intent [27]. But, isthis what we want and need? How much of architecture’s smartness iscontributed by the users? What types of non-critical decisions are left forhuman action? What kind of ecosystem do we want to promote thatinvolves the local landscape, flora, fauna and human beings? What are theethical and cultural issues of buildings becoming networks for living?

Is there a way to integrate human intelligence and agency into thescheme of things in smart architecture? While we do explore intelligentagents’ learning, it should be equally interesting to study how human beingslearn and adapt to or react to smart environments.These are the questionsfor further exploration beyond the scope of this paper.

6 SMARTER ARCHITECTURE

The Latent Utopias exhibition curated by Zaha Hadid and PatrickSchumacher featured a pioneering kinetic responsive prototype namedTopotransegrity. It was a curious mix of topological manipulation thoughpneumatic space frame structure.The project, designed by 5Subzero, agroup of architects from London, featured surfaces that can be manipulatedthrough either an automated control mechanism or a real-time feedbacksystem or a pre-programmable system.The system, if developed asillustrated here, could become a self-organizing system that approachesspatio-temporal smartness with a high smartness quotient.

The system consists of a kinetic space frame driven by three sets ofFesto pneumatic pistons.The original prototype was designed to sense theaudience movements through pressure sensitive mats and translate theimpulses into valve operations controlled via the computer.The scenariodepicted in Figure 2 envisages some dramatic architectural possibilities.Topotransegrity proposes to program the walls and floors along withpeople and events in an all enthralling four-dimensional framework forsmart architecture.

41Rethinking Smart Architecture: Some Strategic Design Frameworks

IJAC 4-3 29/08/06 8:21 am Page 41

� Figure 1:Topotransegrity by 5

Subzero

� Figure 2:TopotransegrityScenario

42 Mahesh Senagala

IJAC 4-3 29/08/06 8:21 am Page 42

More and more architects are beginning to explore the form and formatof such smart and supple architecture.The Muscle, a prototype featured atthe Non-standard Architecture exhibition held at Centre GeorgesPompidou from December 10th, 2003-March 1st, 2004.The Muscle wasdesigned by the Dutch design firm Oosterhuis_Lénárd and dons apneumatic structure that behaves like a gigantic, digitally mediated muscle.The building would flex, contract, expand and mold itself to suit changingprogrammatic conditions over time and in real-time.The architects proposethat the place be used for a variety of activities such as a disco or atelevision studio or a meeting place.The synthetic muscles of the Musclereact as people move near the sensor points.Another way to manipulatethe structure is by moving the sliders on a remote computer screen.Thus,the building becomes spatially interactive and can be plugged into theInternet.This alien-looking blob is not necessarily how buildings might lookas a whole in the future. Some buildings might look that way. However, theMuscle, as ONL proposes, can literally be used as a series of muscles in abuilding to control any environmental or other parameters in real-timethereby leading to truly complex, kinetic, performative, and supplearchitecture.To sum up, as William Mitchell said,“we become trueinhabitants of electronically mediated environments rather than mere usersof computational devices.” [28]

7 CONCLUSIONS

Smart architecture presents us with a combination of opportunities,challenges and dilemmas. Many of the challenges are to do with the

� Figures 3:The Muscle by

Oosterhuis_Lénárd

43Rethinking Smart Architecture: Some Strategic Design Frameworks

IJAC 4-3 29/08/06 8:21 am Page 43

“architecture of the system” and the viability of conceptual frameworks thatform the basis for such an architecture.The paper rethinks smartarchitecture’s strategic and conceptual frameworks.A complex-adaptive andsystems approach has been forwarded as an alternative.While architectureis no more complicated than an automobile, it is arguably far more“complex.”

There has been a convergence of a number of factors that are enablingthe emergence of smart architecture as the next frontier: sensor-actuatortechnologies that have become widely and economically available; ubiquitouscomputing; and machine intelligence. Intelligent buildings of the eighties (thatwere heavily building systems-oriented) and the amateur-focused homeautomation technologies of the nineties are giving way to systemicallyintegrated and globally networked smart architectures that are increasinglyhuman-centric. However, too many approaches to smart architecture arefocused purely on the notions of comfort.We must realize that the humanneeds go beyond the physical comfort. Instead, the emphasis could be laidon globally connecting, informing and empowering the user.

Just as a single computer or a series of isolated computers, no matterhow powerful, could not have brought about such a global culturalrevolution as the Internet, a smart home or a smart building cannot lead ustoward a cultural tipping point.As a number of thinkers have pointed out,connecting the buildings and their systems to the global networks holdsmore architectural and business potential. Solutions to problems do notalways lie in technology alone. Strategic, architectural, cultural,entrepreneurial and other approaches need to be considered together withthe technological solutions.

Much work needs to be done in terms of architectural integration andconceptual models of making architecture smarter.At present, theparticipation of architectural researchers and designers in the developmentof smart architectural schemata is woefully inadequate. More architectsneed to recognize the potential of smart architecture and begin to embarkon pertinent technical, architectural and market research.The paper hasillustrated few of the cutting edge architectural projects that do presentvarious explorations of facets of smart architecture.

References1. Jencks, C., The Language of Postmodern Architecture, New York, NY: Rizzoli, 1977.

2. Mill, P., F. Dubin,V. Hartkopf,V. Loftness,The Need: Intelligent Buildings for BuildingIntelligence, in Brian Atkin, ed., Intelligent Buildings: Applications of IT and BuildingAutomation to High Technology Construction Projects, John Wiley, NY 1988.

3. Christiansson, P., Knowledge Representations and Information Flow In TheIntelligent Building. http://it.civil.auc.dk/it/reports/r_stanford_8_2000.pdf, checkedApril 23, 2006.

4. Flax, B., Intelligent Buildings, in IEEE Communications Magazine, 1991, pp 24-27.

5. Atkin, B., ed., Intelligent Buildings: Applications of IT and Building Automation to HighTechnology Construction Projects, New York, NY: John Wiley & Sons, 1988.

44 Mahesh Senagala

IJAC 4-3 29/08/06 8:21 am Page 44

6. Chan,W. L., So,A.T., Intelligent Building Systems, Boston, MA: Kluwer AcademicPublishers, 1999.

7. Gouin, M. D., and Cross,T. B., Intelligent Buildings: Strategies for Technology andArchitecture, Homewood, IL: Dow Jones-Irwin, 1986.

8. Fogel, D., Evolutionary Computation:Toward A New Philosophy of Machine Intelligence,IEEE Press and Wiley-Interscience, 2006.

9. Myers, C., Intelligent Buildings: A Guide for Facility Managers, New York, NY: UpwordPublishing, 1996.

10. Stotter, J., Intelligent Buildings A Growth Industry (Business Opportunity Report),Stamford, CT: Business Communications Co., Inc., 1986.

11. Cook, Diane J, and Sajal K. Das, et al. Smart Environments:Technology, Protocols, andApplications, Hoboken:Wiley, 2005.

12. Kienzl, N. Evaluating Dynamic Building Materials:The Potential Impact of ClimaticallyResponsive Building Enclosures, Doctoral Thesis, Cambridge, Mass.: HarvardUniversity, 2002.

13. Pagani, F. Adaptive Buildings through Evolutionary Design, Doctoral Thesis,Vancouver,Canada:The University of British Columbia, 1999.

14. Park, C. Occupant Responsive Optimal Control of Smart Façade Systems, DoctoralThesis,Atlanta, Georgia Institute of Technology, USA, 2003.

15. Wisneski, C., Ishii, H, et al.,Ambient Displays:Turning Architectural Space into anInterface between People and Digital Information, in the Proceedings of the FirstInternational Workshop on Cooperative Buildings, CoBuild ‘98, Springer Press,Darmstadt, Germany, 1998. pp. 22-32.

16. Zuk,W., Kinetic Architecture, New York, NY:Van Nostrand Reinhold. 1970.

17. Venturi, R., Complexity and Contradiction in Architecture, New York, NY: MOMA,1966.

18. Cilliers, P., Complexity and Postmodernism, London: Routledge, 1998.

19. Senagala, M., Building is a Network for Living In, in Smart Architecture, Proceedingsof the 2005 Association for Computer Aided Design in Architecture conference,Savannah, GA., 2005.

20. Kelly, K. Out of Control:The New Biology of Machines, New York, NY: PerseusBooks. 1994.

21. Cook, Diane J, and Sajal K. Das, et al. Smart Environments:Technology, Protocols, andApplications, Hoboken:Wiley, 2005.

22. Leen, G., and Heffernen, D.,Vehicles without Wires, in Computing and ControlJournal, October 2001, pp. 205-211.

23. Mozer, M., Lessons from an Adaptive Home, in Das, S. K., and Cook, D., eds.,Smart Environments, Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley and Sons, 2005, pp. 273-294.

24. Atkin, B., ed., Intelligent Buildings: Applications of IT and Building Automation to HighTechnology Construction Projects, New York, NY: John Wiley & Sons, 1988.

25. Wisneski, C., Ishii, H, et al..Ambient Displays:Turning Architectural Space into anInterface between People and Digital Information, in the Proceedings of the FirstInternational Workshop on Cooperative Buildings, CoBuild 1998, Springer Press,Darmstadt, Germany, 1998. pp. 22-32.

26. Kushwaha, N., Kim, M.,An Intelligent Agent For Ubiquitous ComputingEnvironments: Smart Home UT-AGENT, in the Proceedings of the Second IEEEWorkshop on Software Technologies for Future Embedded and Ubiquitous Systems(WSTFEUS’04), 2004.

45Rethinking Smart Architecture: Some Strategic Design Frameworks

IJAC 4-3 29/08/06 8:21 am Page 45

27. Michael H. Coen,The future of human-computer interaction, or how I learned tostop worrying and love my intelligent room, in IEEE Intelligent Systems,March/April 1999.

28. Mitchell,W., E-topia: Urban Life Jim, But Not As We Know It, Cambridge:The MITPress. 1999.

46 Mahesh Senagala

Mahesh SenagalaCollege of ArchitectureUniversity of Texas at San Antonio501 W Durango BlvdSan Antonio,TX 78207USA

mahesh@mahesh.org

IJAC 4-3 29/08/06 8:21 am Page 46